GilDumdum: One other obvious point: A simulation must accurately depict the system being modeled. The thermonuclear fusion of stars is inherent in, and quintessentially critical to, the function of the astronomical system being modeled, and therefore cannot be excluded from the effects of thermonuclear reactions, without the simulation being rendered completely meaningless.

GilDumdum: One other obvious point: A simulation must accurately depict the system being modeled. The thermonuclear fusion of stars is inherent in, and quintessentially critical to, the function of the astronomical system being modeled, and therefore cannot be excluded from the effects of thermonuclear reactions, without the simulation being rendered completely meaningless.

Is that supposed to mean something?

--------------"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

No, you can't. There's no real difference between those two examples. Gil doesn't seem to understand the nature of simulation itself. You can simulate wind flows without putting the computer in a wind tunnel. You can simulate volcanic activity without exposing the circuitry to magma. The whole point of simulation is that you can use a layer of abstraction instead of the thing itself. You don't have to throw actual water on a computer to simulate a flood. It's a simulation, not a recreation. Gil's misunderstanding the very notion of simulation, true to form. IDers misunderstand every scientific field they babble about.

30,000 comments in the old thread. 4650 in the new. I keep waiting for the well to dry up. I keep waiting, and every few months posting, that any day now, the tard mines will be exhausted, and we'll have to move on. But it never seems to happen.

30,000 comments in the old thread. 4650 in the new. I keep waiting for the well to dry up. I keep waiting, and every few months posting, that any day now, the tard mines will be exhausted, and we'll have to move on. But it never seems to happen.

Arden has transmission problems? At his age, It's probably the hydraulics.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

No, you can't. There's no real difference between those two examples. Gil doesn't seem to understand the nature of simulation itself. You can simulate wind flows without putting the computer in a wind tunnel. You can simulate volcanic activity without exposing the circuitry to magma. The whole point of simulation is that you can use a layer of abstraction instead of the thing itself. You don't have to throw actual water on a computer to simulate a flood. It's a simulation, not a recreation. Gil's misunderstanding the very notion of simulation, true to form. IDers misunderstand every scientific field they babble about.

Those two threads -- the original and the follow-on -- are the perfect introduction to the trainwreck that is UD.

You have:

1) GilDo and DaveTard displaying utter ignorance of a field in which they both claim expertise;2) an almost universal inability among the ID supporters to think abstractly;3) their repeated refusal to listen to commenters who actually know what they're talking about;4) several John A. Davison rants;5) an actual prayer, followed by a theological debate;6) deleted comments;7) a pathetic attempt by Gil, three days after the fact, to pretend that his original post was just a joke;8) some bold-font moderator chest-thumping (by Scott);9) DaveTard misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity, and being corrected by an ID critic;10) banninations of Tom English, Reciprocating Bill and me (posting as Karl Pfluger) for exposing DaveTard's chumpitude; and11) DaveTard frantically defending himself as he is mocked by the good folks at AtBC.

It is a true tard extravaganza, lacking only a WAD meltdown and some O'Learian pseudoprose.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

30,000 comments in the old thread. 4650 in the new. I keep waiting for the well to dry up. I keep waiting, and every few months posting, that any day now, the tard mines will be exhausted, and we'll have to move on. But it never seems to happen.

No, you can't. There's no real difference between those two examples. Gil doesn't seem to understand the nature of simulation itself. You can simulate wind flows without putting the computer in a wind tunnel. You can simulate volcanic activity without exposing the circuitry to magma. The whole point of simulation is that you can use a layer of abstraction instead of the thing itself. You don't have to throw actual water on a computer to simulate a flood. It's a simulation, not a recreation. Gil's misunderstanding the very notion of simulation, true to form. IDers misunderstand every scientific field they babble about.

Those two threads -- the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-realistic-computational-simulation-of-random-mutation-filtered-by-natural-selection-in-b

iology/]original[/URL] and the follow-on -- are the perfect introduction to the trainwreck that is UD.

You have:

1) GilDo and DaveTard displaying utter ignorance of a field in which they both claim expertise;2) an almost universal inability among the ID supporters to think abstractly;3) their repeated refusal to listen to commenters who actually know what they're talking about;4) several John A. Davison rants;5) an actual prayer, followed by a theological debate;6) deleted comments;7) a pathetic attempt by Gil, three days after the fact, to pretend that his original post was just a joke;8) some bold-font moderator chest-thumping (by Scott);9) DaveTard misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity, and being corrected by an ID critic;10) banninations of Tom English, Reciprocating Bill and me (posting as Karl Pfluger) for exposing DaveTard's chumpitude; and11) DaveTard frantically defending himself as he is mocked by the good folks at AtBC.

It is a true tard extravaganza, lacking only a WAD meltdown and some O'Learian pseudoprose.

Some have begun to question the nutritional content of recent tard lately. As keiths has shown, nutritional tard is still being generated. However, even fossilized tard can be surprisingly satisfying. Consider this find on ARN, gloriously preserved in amber, and still savory after repeated rumination. TT regulars Vividbleau and Joy figure prominently.

KC

--------------Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Some have begun to question the nutritional content of recent tard lately.

[SNIP]

Nostardgia: The inexplicable and whimsical feeling, often had by more established tard-wranglers, that tard is not as good as it used to be.

Nostardatu: Tard that, no matter how many stakes driven through its heart, rises repeatedly. Can be revived by a single drop of dumb.

Louis

Nostardamus: DaveScot.

Quote

This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.

Politically biased decisions from ostensibly apolitical courts are a double edged sword that cuts both ways. The liberals had their turn at bat. This is our time now. We won back congress in 1996. We won back the White House in 2000. We won back the courts in 2005. Now we can start undoing all the damage that was done by the flower children. The courts have been the last bastion of liberal power for 5 years. It was just a matter of time. The adults are firmly back in charge. The few wilted flower children that refused to grow up will have to satisfy themselves by following the likes of Cindy Sheehan around ineffectually whining about this, that, and the other thing. They’ve been marginalized.

ETA:

Quote

Posted by: DaveScot | September 4, 2008 5:49 PM

You finally got one right, PZ. This IS how you will lose.

Even totally united behind Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004 you couldn't beat a dumbass draft dodging reborn alcoholic George "Shrub" Bush and his snake-oil sidekick Dick Cheney of all people. That's pretty pathetic. This round you've got an even worse candidate that half of your own party thinks stole the nomination by cheating and dirty politics. Your party is shattered up the middle and you have the worst candidate in all the decades I've been paying attention. I knew Jack Kennedy and your nominee, PZ, is no Jack Kennedy.

Now the culture war is still on, the players are all the same on both sides, except this time we have an honest-to-God centrist war hero, even if he is an elitist beltway insider, and a little unheard of cutie, obviously a political savant, who in 30 minutes won the hearts and minds of every heretofore apathetic God fearing blue collar flyover family all across the nation and made them start caring about who wins this election not to mention is stealing a lot of the Hillary voters who wanted nothing more than a woman in the Whitehouse. If McCain wins then Palin, sooner or later, is going to become the first woman president of the United States as by the time she's up for election to the top spot there won't be any question of lack of experience. You are basically looking at teh American Margaret Thatcher. Get used to her. She's going to be in your face for the next 16 years. It's all over except for the tears and anger from your side that you were fucked yet again. Write that down.

Added in edit - OOPS I screwed up my edit, so I apologize to all and keiths, for cutting the quotes referencing that this is his Original Post!

Those two threads -- the original and the follow-on -- are the perfect introduction to the trainwreck that is UD.

You have:

1) GilDo and DaveTard displaying utter ignorance of a field in which they both claim expertise;2) an almost universal inability among the ID supporters to think abstractly;3) their repeated refusal to listen to commenters who actually know what they're talking about;4) several John A. Davison rants;5) an actual prayer, followed by a theological debate;6) deleted comments;7) a pathetic attempt by Gil, three days after the fact, to pretend that his original post was just a joke;8) some bold-font moderator chest-thumping (by Scott);9) DaveTard misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity, and being corrected by an ID critic;10) banninations of Tom English, Reciprocating Bill and me (posting as Karl Pfluger) for exposing DaveTard's chumpitude; and11) DaveTard frantically defending himself as he is mocked by the good folks at AtBC.

It is a true tard extravaganza, lacking only a WAD meltdown and some O'Learian pseudoprose.[/quote]

Thanks for the links!

It's interesting to note that back in 2006 there was actually some back-and-forth discussion at UD!

If only Dave could have resisted the urge to get out of trouble and not use the Big Red Bannination Button....

but I guess that's like asking a clown to leave off the Big Red Nose.

What will the New Year Bring?

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Those two threads -- the [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-realistic-computational-simulation-of-random-mutation-filtered-by-natural-selection-in-b

iology/]original[/URL] and the follow-on -- are the perfect introduction to the trainwreck that is UD.

You have:

1) GilDo and DaveTard displaying utter ignorance of a field in which they both claim expertise;2) an almost universal inability among the ID supporters to think abstractly;3) their repeated refusal to listen to commenters who actually know what they're talking about;4) several John A. Davison rants;5) an actual prayer, followed by a theological debate;6) deleted comments;7) a pathetic attempt by Gil, three days after the fact, to pretend that his original post was just a joke;8) some bold-font moderator chest-thumping (by Scott);9) DaveTard misunderstanding the concept of irreducible complexity, and being corrected by an ID critic;10) banninations of Tom English, Reciprocating Bill and me (posting as Karl Pfluger) for exposing DaveTard's chumpitude; and11) DaveTard frantically defending himself as he is mocked by the good folks at AtBC.

It is a true tard extravaganza, lacking only a WAD meltdown and some O'Learian pseudoprose.

Mmmmm.... (drifts back) ....perhaps you can never really recapture that first time, your brown-eyed girlfriend, that first trip, UD in the rosy fullness of Tard... (wipes a tear) ...

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

On a thread where Bob O'H is insulted by folks who know he can't respond there now, angryoldfatman indulges in a bit of projection.

Quote

“Slaughter of the Dissidents” is not so far-fetched once theism is attributed to mental disease via Dawkinsian Darwinism, then mental disease is further attributed to genetics via evolutionary psychology. After psychoactive drug therapy fails, the only viable solution becomes eugenics - first negative, then progressing onto positive.

--------------Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mindHas been obligated from the beginningTo create an ordered universeAs the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers

Mmmmm.... (drifts back) ....perhaps you can never really recapture that first time, your brown-eyed girlfriend (Reality = Buck-toothed, practically a shemale, name was "Bertha", large beard) , that first trip (Reality = Hours of drivel spouting and dizzying, vomitous disorientation, actual "insight" gained from the "trip" = zero) , UD in the rosy fullness of Tard (Reality = Dumb then, dumb now. The dumb has been, give or take the odd friday meltdown inspired fluctuation and multiple tardgasms over Expelled, pretty consistent. My sciencisticalerised prediction is that the amount of tard is constant.) ... (wipes a tear) ...

Avida DID NOT generate IC. Because of the way Avida operates every structure it produces is by definition not IC because it was generated by stepwise path.

So...IC is defined by how it comes about, not by what it is. Right.KC

My reading of that whole tardfest is that Dave's statement that you quote, obviously at odds with D+B's various definitions of IC, and the subsequent drubbing that he took as a result, were the primary cause of his bannination fit that took out Tom English, Recip Bill, Keiths and others.

Davey don't likecan't take being proven wrong.

--------------The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein (H/T, JAD)
If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

I’ve been reading the book myself lately. I had to stop. I just couldn’t stand seeing case after case of people being emotionally tortured, humiliated and flogged by schools, courts and so-called colleagues merely for stating (even off work time!) that they had doubts on Darwinism.

-a bad rec letter-getting yelled at by your department chair-a professor suggesting that creationists not be allowed to graduate with bio degrees (this suggestion was not implemented)-some death threats- admittedly, this is bad, but I can think of a lot of other people who got death threats.. judge jones comes to mind.

This may be completely superfluous, but I've been thinking about the evolution of the bicycle.

The problem with the analogy is not that a wheel can be removed, leaving a functional unicycle.

The problem with the analogy is that we know much of the history of bicycles (and wheels in general) and know that the various memes enabling the invention of bicycles did not spring full grown from the forehead of Zeus.

We have examples of early wheels that were simply logs placed under heavy objects to make moving them easier. So we have a plausible scenario in which a found object can become useful. First unicycle. No construction required, no modification of structure required. No seat. No handlebars. No chain. No pedals.

Analogies have limits, but what we can take from this is the fact that knowing the actual history of an invention makes nonsense of claims of irreducibility.

Human designed objects like bicycles do not begin with a vision of the perfect final form, and the fact that removal of a piece makes the product significantly less functional says nothing about the history of the invention.

The Intelligent Design argument stands or falls on what it can say about the history of an object, and so far it can say nothing.

EDIT: I suppose this belongs on the Luskin thread.

--------------Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

it is precisely this prospect that makes ID intellectually challenging

Materialist atheism is what makes Design challenging, Mr. Fuller.

Quote

So, then, what exactly is this ‘intelligence’ that stands apart from matter?

The organized sequencing of the nucleotides in the DNA molecule cannot come about by chance or mechanical necessity. From qualitative analysis of mechanisms, it requires volitional agency to create such organized sequencing. This is what stands apart from the matter that is animated by its existence.

Quote

It’s interesting that not everything is claimed to be intelligently designed.

Mr. Fuller, you have a hook in your mouth. Please spit it out.

I think it's interesting where Fuller is going. I fully agree with his main thesis - that ID should ask questions about the designer - but we all know where that will lead. I guess that's why some of the UDites are so upset, indeed the upright ones are so upset they are becoming uptight.

--------------It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)

Human designed objects like bicycles do not begin with a vision of the perfect final form, and the fact that removal of a piece makes the product significantly less functional says nothing about the history of the invention.

The Intelligent Design argument stands or falls on what it can say about the history of an object, and so far it can say nothing.

EDIT: I suppose this belongs on the Luskin thread.

Is this kind of what you had in mind for Casey to use as his bicycle prequel?

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08